i would like to hear anyones pros and cons on this subject, I have just received a barreled action from Montana Rifle Co. and would like to mount a scope. This is a 338 Lapua Cal.

In general I prefer 2-pc mounts - they interfere less with access to the loading port.
- mike

For accuracy, precision, strength...I'd say a one piece mount. I had such base/mount on an M40.

For better access to loading port, reduced weight, the ability to grasp the scope tube like a handle...I'd say a two piece. I have such on a few big bore rifles.

Any DGR needs a two piece for loading port access.

Target or "deer stand" rifles get a one piece picatinny rail or "weaver-style rail".

Another difference is that a lot of 'Redfield-type' one-piece bases only attach using three screws. A two-piece base attaches with four screws.

George

to me? it's taste.. red heads or redheads.... <rackslacksnack>,,,, oppps, sorry i MEANT blondes or redheads (the wife, holding the mossberg, is a blonde)

jeffe

quote:

Originally posted by GaryVA:
For accuracy, precision, strength...I'd say a one piece mount. I had such base/mount on an M40.

For better access to loading port, reduced weight, the ability to grasp the scope tube like a handle...I'd say a two piece. I have such on a few big bore rifles.

Strength is not added with any bolt on accesory nor does it stiffen the action. I have heard this forever. I prefer two pc. for sure!

quote:

Originally posted by ted thorn:

quote:

Originally posted by GaryVA:
For accuracy, precision, strength...I'd say a one piece mount. I had such base/mount on an M40.

Strength is not added with any bolt on accesory nor does it stiffen the action. I have heard this forever. I prefer two pc. for sure!

I'm unsure what hardware is used by the Marines to mount a sniper scope today. But my older M40 had a one piece unitized mount held to the reciever by four 8x40 screws. The guncranks at Quantico made it clear to me that such a one piece system was far superior to any two piece system on a precision rifle. I think most civilian precision rifle mounting systems I've seen is a direct copy of this.

If this has now change with newer technology, I stand corrected.

On the CZ rifles, the mount (dovetail) is cut in the receiver.

Reckon that's strong enough?

Use a 1 piece aluminum mount, it makes the action more rigid. Just make sure you use locktite on the screws.



OK OK I'm going to hell I know, But I remember this being discussed seriously back in the 70's!

Ted,

quote:

Strength is not added with any bolt on accesory nor does it stiffen the action. I have heard this forever. I prefer two pc. for sure!

I think you may have been listening to the wrong people. How can a bar of steel that is bolted to the front and the rear ring, not stiffen the action. I have an engineering background and I would not even ask someone to prove that. It is plainly evident.

I do share the prefernce your preference for two piece bases.

I have just fitted two piece mounts to one of my 22 BRNOs and am glad I did because now the empties don't hit the one piece on their way out. Not that it was a problem. just mildly annoying. The other two still have their rail clamped to the dovetail.

I've used both one piece and two piece and both have been successful in securing the scope to the rifle.

The two piece are lighter and do not restrict the ejection port and I like the two piece for this reason.

If I buy a used rifle with a one piece base I replace it almost immediately.

I'm surprised I haven't heard anyone mention how a 1 piece can torque an action. As we all know, not all base mounting holes are in alignment and if not, a 1 piece can add stress to the receiver. I have heard this arguement before. I'm not an engineer so I don't know if this is true, but intuitively it makes sense.